Officer Safety Act of 2012

Mr. President, the old adage that sunlight is the best disinfectant is an old adage for one main reason: It is true.

That is why I am introducing the Financial Disclosure to Reduce Tax Haven Abuse Act of 2012, to require candidates for Federal office and certain Federal employees to disclose any financial interest they or their spouse hold that is held in an offshore tax haven.

It might seem ridiculous that we don't already know whether candidates and Members of Congress are using offshore tax havens. However, under current law, those individuals are not required to account for where their financial interests are held.

A January 26, 2012, article in the Los Angeles Times reported that Mitt Romney--a candidate for the Republican nomination for President-- failed to disclose a number of accounts in countries with very low tax burdens.

Specifically, according to a review of the candidate's tax returns and financial disclosure statements:

At least 23 funds and partnerships listed in the couple's

2010 tax returns did not show up or were not listed in the

same fashion on Romney's most recent financial disclosure,

including 11 based in low-tax foreign countries such as

Bermuda, the Cayman Islands and Luxembourg.

The Romney campaign called the discrepancies ``trivial.''

But this information is not trivial to the American people's trust in government, and the use of offshore tax havens is not trivial to our economy.

Studies have found that tax offshore tax havens, and other similar loopholes, cost taxpayers $100 billion per year.

I want to commend Senators Levin and Conrad for the work they have done to shine a light on these nefarious practices.

Those two Senators successfully included a provision in the Senate Transportation bill that will give the Treasury Department greater tools to crack down on offshore tax haven abuse. It is an important step forward, but more must be done.

The American people are rightly concerned that the wealthy and well- connected are skirting our laws to avoid taxation, and they deserve to know that the people who hope to represent them in Washington--and those who are trying to attain those positions--aren't cheating the system.

Nothing in this bill impinges on an individual's right to hold financial interests within the global economy. If there is a legitimate reason for a candidate or a Member of Congress or any other individual who files a financial disclosure to hold their money in an account on the Cayman Islands, they should have no problem explaining it to voters. But any individual who has or wants to have the public's trust should be honest about practices they have engaged in that cost the taxpayers they wish to represent billions of dollars every year. This is an important step that we must take to restore the public trust.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, last week, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau reported that outstanding student loan debt in America has hit the $1 trillion mark--student loans.

A CFPB official was cited by Bloomberg News saying that ``excessive student debt could slow the recovery of the housing market, as young people repay money for their education rather than buying homes.'' Massive student debt is also affecting consumers' ability to purchase goods and services.

Yesterday, at the Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government hearing focusing on student debt, Treasury Secretary Geithner came to talk about it. While the overall growth of student indebtedness is troubling, the most pressing concern is private student loans.

Secretary Geithner also recognized that private student loans do not come with any of the consumer protections that Federal loans do. Private student loans are far riskier. Federal student loans have fixed, affordable interest rates--3.4 percent. They also have a variety of consumer protections. The Federal loans have forbearance in times of economic hardship, and they offer manageable repayment options, such as the income-based repayment plan.

Private student loans, on the other hand, often have high variable interest rates--some have been quoted at 18 percent, the kind of rates you are careful about when it comes to your credit--and they have hefty origination fees and a lack of repayment options. Private lenders have targeted low-income borrowers with some of the riskiest, highest cost loans.

In many respects, private student loans are like credit cards--except unlike credit card debt, private student loan debt can never be discharged in bankruptcy. In 2005, Congress changed the bankruptcy laws. I want to make a point here: I voted against it. Congress changed the bankruptcy laws and included a provision making private student loan debts nondischargeable in bankruptcy, except in the rarest of circumstances. I have never found one that qualifies. That means students are stuck with their loans for life.

While the volume of private student loans is down from its peak a few years ago when it accounted for 26 percent of all student loans, private lending is still aggressively promoted by the for-profit college industry. The Project on Student Debt reports that 42 percent of for-profit college students had private loans in 2008, up from 12 percent 5 years earlier. For-profit college students also graduate with more debt than their peers who graduate from public or private and non- private colleges. Many for-profit colleges employ a business model that steers students into private student loans because of the 90/10 rule.

For the record, private for-profit schools can only receive 90 percent of their revenue from the Federal Government. They are the closest darn thing to a Federal agency you have ever seen, except they are making millions of dollars at the expense of the government and unsuspecting students and their families. So to find the 10 percent of nonfederal money, for-profit schools get the students to sign up to pay for 10 percent of their education in private student loans, even if they qualify for Federal loans, which are a much better deal.

The 90/10 rule that requires at least 10 percent of revenue from non- Federal

student aid sources makes this an imperative for many for-profit schools. As a result, many students are encouraged to take up private loans when they are still eligible for Federal loans--even when the lenders know the students are going to default--so schools can comply with the 90/10 rule.

Kari Schaab contacted my office seeking relief from her burdensome student debt. She received a bachelor of arts from the International Academy of Design and Technology, a for-profit college. When she spoke to an admissions representative, she was enrolled almost immediately. Looking back, she says of the school: ``They take whoever is willing to pay.''

She was assured she would be able to obtain a position in her field that would help her pay off her student debt. Reflecting on her experience, she said: ``I was young and didn't understand how much I would owe or what the loans were. I trusted them.''

After completing her BA program, she decided that she would pursue a master's in her field. What she found out shocked her. No schools would accept her degree. It was a worthless diploma. With no job, no future in her chosen field, and about $58,000 in debt, she decided to switch careers entirely so that she would be able to pay off her student loans.

She currently attends Oaktown Community College for nursing. She is unable to get a mortgage because of her old student loan debt of $58,000. Worse yet, her parents, trying to help her out, took out $19,000 in loans to help pay her tuition. Her parents are currently in chapter 13 bankruptcy, but that loan won't be discharged.

We need to begin now to address this looming student debt bomb crisis. We need to protect students and prevent more students from stepping into the same traps that have caught so many others.

Today, Senator Tom Harkin and I are introducing the Know Before You Owe Private Student Loan Act of 2012. Here is what it says: It requires the prospective borrower's school to confirm the student's enrollment status, the cost of attendance, and the estimated Federal financial aid assistance before the private student loan is approved. Often, students haven't applied for Federal student aid before they are asked to apply for private student loans, which are not nearly as generous or flexible.

Requiring school certifications also gives the school the opportunity to make students aware of Federal Government student aid options.

The bill requires schools to counsel the student about their options, tell them how the private student loan will affect those options, and what it will cost to repay the loans. Basics.

In addition, schools will be required to inform students about the differences between Federal and private student loans. And the differences are dramatic. This will give students time to weigh their options, make a choice, and be informed.

When students such as Kari contact my office about their student loans, they often don't know the difference between the two types of loans. They said: ``It was just a student loan, Senator.'' Most go on to say that if they had known, they would have thought more carefully about a private student loan and the debt they were incurring.

For those students who do decide to take out a private student loan, the bill requires lenders to provide the borrower with quarterly up-to- date information about their balance and interest rate.

Finally, the bill requires lenders to report information to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau about how many students are taking out loans and at what rates. There is very little information about private student loans currently available. More information will help Congress and the CFPB effectively inform consumers about these private student loans.

This legislation is supported by a huge coalition of education, student, and consumer organizations. I want to thank Tom Harkin for his work on this bill, especially all of the hard work he has put in on these for-profit colleges.

Mr. President, it is finally dawning on a lot of Members of Congress as they see programs such as ``Frontline'' talking about the for-profit college industry, and as they meet these students who are going to these worthless for-profit colleges--students who are just stacking up debt for a worthless diploma--it is time for our Federal Government to step up. How can we blame a student or their family if they are going to a school where we, the Federal Government, are willing to offer Pell grants and Federal loans? What is a student to think? Well, if it is good enough for the Federal Government to loan money, it must be a good school.

In fact, in many instances--in most instances--these for-profit schools are not good schools. They are not offering a good education. There are exceptions, but too many of them are just bad operations. We subsidize them. Ninety to ninety-five percent of their revenue comes straight from the Federal Government. When they talk about freezing Federal employees' salaries, we ought to freeze the employees at these for-profit schools. They are the closest thing to Federal employees we have--95 percent Federal. We don't hear that from the other side of the aisle. But it is a fact.

I will tell you this: This student loan debt bomb we are facing, which I talked to Secretary of the Treasury Geithner about yesterday, is going to explode on us, just as the subprime market loans did. More and more students are going into default. They can't pay back these student loans, and they are going to face life decisions that will change their futures and the future of the American economy.

We now have 40 percent of students who are making payments on their student loans--40 percent. Sixty percent are not. Some are still in school, I will concede that point, but many of them just can't do it. We pile this debt on, we give them preferred treatment in the Bankruptcy Court so the lenders can't have the debt discharged, and we sit there and watch as the lives of these young people deteriorate.

As one young lady testified at my hearing that she borrowed $37,625 from the Federal government, $40,925 in private loans. She went to the Harrington College of Design in the suburbs of Chicago and ended up with a worthless diploma--worthless. Five years later, her debt is no longer $78,000; it is $98,000. It just keeps going up. She pays $830 a month, and the private student loan debt is exploding right in front of her. She can't pay it. She doesn't know what she is going to do. She said she is going to have to give up the little home she and her husband just bought. It looks pretty desperate for her, and her desperate situation faces her at the age of 32--32.

How do we let this happen? Don't we have an obligation as a government, as a people, to stop this exploitation of children and their families? That is what is going on.

This bill I have put in today will require these schools--all schools--to tell the students first that they have Federal loan eligibility left. It is 3.4 percent, not 18 percent. There is loan forgiveness if they become a nurse or a teacher. It is based on the amount of income they have later in life what their repayment is going to be. If they do get into trouble, they can have a delay in payment without watching their loan just stack up. These are basic things we build into the law to help students. Students and their families ought to know that, and that is what this bill is about.

I commend this bill to my colleagues. I hope they will join Senator Harkin and me. I want to offer this on the Senate floor, and I want some colleagues to go home and face this student loan issue and listen to the families they represent. We are hearing from our Web site, and I invite students and families to come to my official Web site to tell their stories. As we learn what it is all about, we see the need to move on this, and move quickly.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce bipartisan energy legislation, the Domestic Fuels Act. This legislation is designed to help hard-working Americans with the high fuel prices, the high gas prices they are paying at the pump. This legislation will truly help us do ``all of the above'' when it comes to producing and providing lower cost energy for American consumers, American businesses, and to fuel our economy, help create jobs, and also to create greater national energy security. It is part of what I believe we need to do to truly have an energy security plan for our country.

I wish to take a few minutes to talk about the Domestic Fuels Act. We are going to start with a quick review of gas prices. As we all very well know, gas prices are high, and they continue to go higher. AAA indicated this week the national average for a gallon of gasoline is $3.91 a gallon. Gasoline prices, over the last 3 years of the current administration, have more than doubled from about roughly $1.87 to the national average today of more than $3.90. I believe there are nine States right now where, on average, gas is more than $4 a gallon. In Chicago, for example, I believe it is about $4.68. Over here, a few blocks from the Capitol, I checked not too long ago and it was $4.39 a gallon.

This puts enormous pressure and strain on American consumers, hard- working Americans, every day, when they are being forced to fill their car at the gas pump and spend close to $4 per gallon. Some predictions are that later this summer, it may go to $5 a gallon. Clearly, we have to find a way to help with gasoline prices across this country.

What it comes down to is supply and demand. More supply creates downward pressure on gasoline prices; more demand, of course, pushes prices higher. So we have to find ways to increase the supply and increase the supply in a dependable way. That means not only increasing supply now but having policies in place that increase supply now and in the future.

We need to send signals to the market that we are serious about growing our supply of energy--all types of energy--certainly gas and oil but all types of energy in this country, as well as working with our neighbors we can count on, such as Canada, for more supplies to help reduce the price of gasoline and, frankly, reduce the cost of all types of energy to help get the economy going, to have more national security and more jobs to put the 13 million people who are unemployed back to work. Energy is a key aspect of creating the type of economic environment that will help us do that.

This chart shows our current level of crude oil production. The first bar shows that between ourselves and Canada, we produce just under 10 million barrels of crude and crude equivalent right now. In North America--Canada and the United States--we produce under 10 million barrels of crude today. That comes not only from conventional oil but oil shale, tight oil, oil sands, Arctic, and offshore--all these different sources.

Under the current policies, we can see by looking at this next bar that over the next 15 years the supply of oil and gas coming from Canada and the United States will shrink. Under the current policies and the current approach, without the kind of energy policy we need in this country, we actually will have less oil and gas from Canada and the United States over the next 15 years.

The key is this: We have to implement the kind of energy policy that will help us produce more energy, oil and gas, and from all sources, traditional and renewable. That is what we are talking about with this Domestic Fuels Act.

The third bar on this chart shows that just from oil and gas, with the right kinds of policies over the next 15 years--this is a 15-year timeframe--we can produce more oil and gas in Canada and the United States than we consume. So before we bring in other types of energy-- biofuels and any other types, any renewable energy we want to include, just from oil and gas, with the right kinds of policies in Canada and the United States, over the next 15 years we can produce more energy than we consume.

Think what that means in terms of helping bring down the price of gasoline and in terms of creating jobs in our country; think of what that means in terms of national security, not needing to depend on crude oil from the Middle East. That is just with the right policies to develop more oil and gas. Of course, we can develop all the other types of energy resources as well.

Let's not take 15 years to get this done. Let's have a plan for national energy security that gets it done in the next 5 to 7 years. There is no question we can do it. We can absolutely do it. How do we do it? Very simple and very common sense. When we talk about producing ``all of the above,'' let's actually do that. Let's not say ``all of the above'' and then block energy production. Let's have the kinds of energy policies in place, traditional sources and renewable sources, on a bipartisan basis. Let's put the types of policies in place that will truly help us get to energy security, and let's do it over the next 5 to 7 years. Let's increase oil production in the United States and Canada. Let's have the policies that help us produce more oil onshore and off. Let's increase natural gas production and usage.

Again, let's join with Canada and do this with North American energy. We have incredible potential with Canada. We are the closest friends and allies in the world. Let's increase the renewable fuels we produce right here at home. We can do that with a market-based approach. Let's increase our use of renewable fuels with market-based approaches that work. Let's use technology to drive energy production--produce more energy--with better environmental stewardship.

We can do all these things. When we talk about an energy security plan or the path to energy security in our country, these are very commonsense steps. I have bills, as do other Members of this body, on a bipartisan basis, to do all these things--increase oil production, increase the use of natural gas, increase renewables with market-based approaches, and use technology

to drive energy and do it with better environmental stewardship.

One of the things I submitted legislation to do is approve the Keystone Pipeline. It is an issue that has been very much in the national discussion. It has gotten a lot of attention. It is a straightforward concept. It simply says let's develop the infrastructure in our country, so that as we produce more oil in Canada--Canada has the third largest oil reserves in the world. No. 1 is Saudi Arabia, No. 2 is Venezuela, and No. 3 is Canada. Let's work with Canada to tap and use more of that oil. If we don't, it will go to China. But we can do it. We simply have to develop the infrastructure and work with Canada.

What has the opposition to that oil development been? A number of arguments have come up. The main one behind it is, some people say we don't want to produce oil in the oil sands; we don't want to do that. The concern, in their opinion, is greenhouse gas. It has about a 6- percent higher greenhouse gas emission than conventional drilling production.

The important point is--going back to the last chart, which I mentioned in the national energy security plan is let's use technology to produce more energy with better stewardship. What I mean is, when we talk about the oil sands, rather than using the current excavation method, 80 percent of the new development is going to in situ, which is essentially drilling. So it is basically the same footprint and same greenhouse gas emissions as conventional drilling for oil and gas. So let's use that new technology to produce more energy, more oil in the Canadian oil sands, and do it with better environmental stewardship.

We will then be getting oil from a dependable ally, rather than getting 30 percent of our crude from the Middle East and Venezuela. It is just common sense. We win with more energy at a lower cost. We win with job creation, and we win with better environmental stewardship. We need to just get the right policies, the right law, and the right approach to how we regulate these things in place.

That is what the Domestic Fuels Act is all about. It is an example of exactly how we do that. The Domestic Fuels Act essentially says, all right, when we pull up to the gas station, we should be able to get whatever fuel provides the best energy for what we need at the best possible price.

It is about consumer choice, and it is about lowering the cost at the pump.

Right now, when you pull in, very often the petroleum retail marketer has multiple tanks in order to dispense various types of fuel. It might be traditional gasoline from petroleum, it might be some blend of petroleum and ethanol, he might have biodiesel, and increasingly service stations, gas stations, are looking to market natural gas. But think about it. If they have to have a different set of tanks, different set of piping, and different dispensers for each type of fuel, then they have to make a choice, don't they. They can maybe offer gasoline from petroleum, they can maybe offer some ethanol blend, they can maybe offer biodiesel, or maybe they try natural gas; right?

But if they have to have tanks and pumps and piping for each one, think of the cost--hundreds of thousands of dollars.

So how do you get consumer choice? How do you get consumer choice in there? Also, how do you get the lowest price? If petroleum-based gasoline versus ethanol-based is cheaper, well, then, maybe they want to offer straight petroleum, not have a blend. But if they can mix it with ethanol, offer even up to E85, and that is cheaper, they may want to offer that. If they want to offer biodiesel rather than traditional diesel or if they want to offer natural gas--because increasingly we have trucks and buses particularly in our urban areas using natural gas--how do they do it? That is the point.

What this act provides is that the EPA has to streamline the process so a service station or gas station can use their existing tanks and equipment so they can decide to offer any one of those products. Now we have more consumer choice and we have a way to drive down prices at the pump--drive down the cost of gasoline, drive down the cost of biofuels, drive down the cost of natural gas, or whatever it is--consumer choice, lower prices, and that extends back through the production chain as well. If I produce ethanol, if I produce biodiesel, if I produce gasoline or natural gas, I know I am going to be able to market those products to consumers.

This is about looking to the future instead of looking to the past. This isn't about government spending any more money. This is about the government empowering industry, empowering entrepreneurship, empowering the energy sector, and empowering our consumers with choice and lower costs at the pump. It is just common sense. It is just common sense. We give the marketer a way to market whatever product makes the most sense and whatever best serves the consumers at the best price. We give them liability protection so they know they can go forward and offer these different products without worrying about being sued and losing their livelihood so they are willing to do it. We provide a clear and simple pathway so they know what they have to accomplish in order to best serve their consumers and build their business.

This is about the right kind of legal framework. This is about the right kind of legislation that is clear, understandable, and empowering. This is how we get government working for people rather than people working for government. This is how we build the right kind of energy future based on all of the above. This isn't just about saying, hey, let's do all of the above when it comes to energy development. This is about doing it. This is about making a difference for the American consumer, and we can do it.

This legislation is bipartisan legislation. I am very pleased Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri is cosponsoring it with me, along with Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Mike Crapo of Idaho, and I believe we will have many others joining us on both sides of the aisle. Also, we are working with Representative John Shimkus in the House who will be introducing companion legislation as well.

The other point I want to make in concluding is that we have broad- based support from companies and people who work in the traditional energy sector as well as the renewable energy sector, who make the equipment that dispense gasoline and other types of fuel products and the people who sell gasoline and all types of fuel. They are all onboard.

Let me give an example. From the renewable fuels energy sector, we have the Renewable Fuels Association endorsing this legislation, and also Growth Energy. From traditional oil and gas, the American Petroleum Institute has endorsed this legislation, as has Tesoro Corporation and ExxonMobil, and there are many others. From the service stations--the marketers that actually dispense the product--endorsing this legislation is the National Association of Convenience Stores, the Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America, the Petroleum Marketers Association of America, and the National Association of Truck Stop Operators. From the people who make the equipment, the manufacturers that make the equipment, we have received endorsements as well from the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers and also the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute.

Look, everybody is onboard. Now we need to get to work and get it in place. This is about building the right kind of energy future for our country. We have to get going. Gasoline prices are $4 at the pump, and they are going higher. We can do something about it, and that is exactly what we need to do.

I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort on behalf of the American people.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of a bill that I am introducing on behalf of a bipartisan group of Senators, the Officer Safety Act of 2012, S. 2276. This bill allows a Federal law enforcement agent, who stops a violent crime while off-duty and is indicted in a State court for those actions, to petition for the State criminal prosecution against him to be removed to Federal court.

The bill effectuates this change by amending the Federal removal statute, found in 28 United States Code, Section 1442, to clarify when a Federal law enforcement officer is acting under the color of his office.

As a 2003 Judiciary Committee report stated, ``Law enforcement officers are never `off-duty.' '' Many are required to carry an off- duty weapon. When they fly on personal business, they are expected to carry their weapon and check-in with the airline as a Federal law enforcement agent so they can defend the pilots and passengers if something bad happens. In fact, Federal agents are specifically paid to be available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Agents can be disciplined if they are not available when called.

They are not even allowed to engage in activities on their personal time that regular citizens take for granted, like coaching their kids' sports teams, if it might interfere with their ability to respond to a crisis.

Federal law enforcement agents are extensively trained, at the expense of the taxpayer for the benefit of the taxpayer. They not only train in basic academies, but they are required to participate in additional and regular training and re-certifications many times each year. If training is missed or if standards are not up to par, the agent is disciplined or removed. Federal law enforcement agencies take training requirements very seriously. The United States is known for having the best trained Federal law enforcement officers in the world.

So what if one of these exceptionally trained Federal law enforcement agents walks into the grocery store on a Saturday and witnesses a woman being repeatedly hit by her husband; do we want him to walk past the woman? No. The taxpayers spend money on his training so that he can protect victims, not walk away from them. In this situation, we all hope that he would use his training to protect the victim. But when he steps in to protect the victim from a crime of violence occurring in his presence, he risks state criminal prosecution and damage to his career. That might lead him to hesitate. This is contrary to good public policy. If we were the victim in this scenario, every one of us would want that Federal law enforcement officer to help us.

If a Federal agent acts to protect an individual in his presence from a crime of violence, as taxpayer dollars have trained him to do, and then is indicted in State court for that act, he should have the right to defend himself within the Federal court system.

So the Officer Safety Act amends the removal statute, found in Title 28, United States Code, Section 1442, to clarify when a Federal law enforcement officer is acting under the color of his office. This bill does not provide immunity for law enforcement agents, and it does not grant them additional authority. It doesn't even guarantee that the case will be moved from State to Federal court: the State will be heard and its position will be weighed by the judge before deciding if removal is appropriate. It does allow a Federal law enforcement officer/agent, who is indicted in a State court for actions related to his protection of a victim of a violent crime that is committed in the officer's presence, to petition for that criminal case to be removed to Federal court, where the officer will be required to defend his actions.

Current law provides that removal is proper so long as defendants demonstrate that they are officers of the United States that acted ``under color of'' their office and have a ``colorable federal defense''.

In general, a Federal agent acts ``under color of'' his office when he takes actions that are necessary and reasonable for the discharge of his Federal responsibilities. Accordingly, the prototypical example of a Federal officer acting under color of his office is a Federal law enforcement officer who kills someone while performing an act related to Federal law enforcement and, in the subsequent State homicide prosecution, claims he was acting in self-defense and/or is entitled to official immunity. The Supreme Court has upheld this prototypical example as appropriate for removal from State court to Federal court.

The primary restraint on the current statute's scope is its limitation to defendants who acted under color of Federal office or, in other words, while performing official duties. Defendants must show in their petition for removal that there is a causal nexus between the actions challenged and their Federal duties.

The history of the removal statute explains why this is important. The statute dates back to 1815. It was passed in response to the New England States' opposition to the trade embargo with England during the War of 1812. The law provided for the removal to Federal court of any suit or prosecution commenced in State court against a Federal customs officer or other persons enforcing Federal customs laws.

Thus, Federal agents did not need to fear performing their jobs because the local authorities opposed the embargo and wanted to stop them from enforcing it.

A few decades later, the U.S. Government encountered a similar problem in South Carolina, which in 1833 declared certain Federal tariff laws unenforceable within its borders. Congress responded by authorizing the removal of any suit or prosecution commenced in a State court against an officer of the United States for the enforcement of the Federal revenue laws.

During the Civil War and the Reconstruction era, Congress' disenchantment with State courts in the South led to new Federal officer removal laws. In the 1863 Habeas Corpus Act, Congress provided for the removal of suits or prosecutions against persons acting under Federal authority for actions, or failures to act, during the Civil War. In addition, Congress passed a removal statute similar to those of 1815 and 1833, authorizing the removal of suits or prosecutions commenced in State court against Federal officers for actions, or omissions, related to the collection of Federal revenue. However, it was not until the enactment of the Judicial Code of 1948 that Congress extended the statute to cover all Federal officers.

The courts view the history behind section 1442 and its statutory predecessors as justification for construing the statute broadly to assure the supremacy of U.S. law and protect Federal operations against interference from State judicial proceedings.

This bill does not infringe upon States' rights, as they retain the same due process rights to be heard on the question of removal that have existed since the early 1800s. In fact, this Congress passed a bill by unanimous consent that amended this statute, without a word about States' rights.

Today, Federal law enforcement officers, whether or not in uniform, require protections when they take actions to assist citizens. Civil liability protections are provided to officers under The Good Samaritan Act, codified at Title 28, United States Code, Section 2671. This bill, the Officer Safety Act, while modeled on the Good Samaritan Act, is narrower, more restrictive, and provides no liability protection. Rather, this bill clarifies the ``color of law'' prong required in the removal process, as courts have invited Congress to clarify.

The bill makes no change to the current standards governing when removal is permissible, and therefore leaves alone existing standards and case law. But it provides that in three situations, the law enforcement officer who is a defendant in a State criminal prosecution will be deemed to have acted under color of his or her office: when the officer protects a victim from a violent crime committed in the presence of the officer; when the officer provides immediate assistance to an individual who suffered or is about to suffer imminent bodily harm; and when the officer prevents the escape of an individual the officer reasonably believes committed or was about to commit, in the presence of the officer, a crime of violence that resulted in or was likely to result in serious bodily injury. I believe that in these situations, the Federal courts should always determine that the law enforcement officer acted under the color of his or her office for purposes of determining whether to grant the officer's removal petition. But the courts remain free to determine under current law that there are other circumstances in which an officer seeking removal satisfies the color of office standard.

So the bill is a modest change that nevertheless provides an important layer of safety for the people who risk their lives day-in and day-out to protect us. It will help make our communities safer and protect those who are sworn to guard and serve the American public.

This principle and this bill are supported by the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the Federal Bureau of Investigation Agents Association, and the National Border Patrol Council.

I want to thank Senator Coons, a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, who co-chairs the Senate Law Enforcement Caucus, and is a co-sponsor on this bill. He understands the need to support law enforcement officers who risk their lives every day so that we can sleep safely at night.

Further, I want to thank Senators Coburn and Sessions, also members of the Judiciary Committee and co-sponsors. They, too, understand this allows us to support Federal agents without spending a dollar.

``Law enforcement officers are never `off-duty.' '' To expect them to standby while a victim suffers violent acts in his presence is contrary to the oath they take to protect and renders their tax-funded training wasted as a citizen becomes a victim. Please join me in protecting those who protect us.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of a bill that I am introducing on behalf of a bipartisan group of Senators, the Officer Safety Act of 2012, S. 2276. This bill allows a Federal law enforcement agent, who stops a violent crime while off-duty and is indicted in a State court for those actions, to petition for the State criminal prosecution against him to be removed to Federal court.

The bill effectuates this change by amending the Federal removal statute, found in 28 United States Code, Section 1442, to clarify when a Federal law enforcement officer is acting under the color of his office.

As a 2003 Judiciary Committee report stated, ``Law enforcement officers are never `off-duty.' '' Many are required to carry an off- duty weapon. When they fly on personal business, they are expected to carry their weapon and check-in with the airline as a Federal law enforcement agent so they can defend the pilots and passengers if something bad happens. In fact, Federal agents are specifically paid to be available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Agents can be disciplined if they are not available when called.

They are not even allowed to engage in activities on their personal time that regular citizens take for granted, like coaching their kids' sports teams, if it might interfere with their ability to respond to a crisis.

Federal law enforcement agents are extensively trained, at the expense of the taxpayer for the benefit of the taxpayer. They not only train in basic academies, but they are required to participate in additional and regular training and re-certifications many times each year. If training is missed or if standards are not up to par, the agent is disciplined or removed. Federal law enforcement agencies take training requirements very seriously. The United States is known for having the best trained Federal law enforcement officers in the world.

So what if one of these exceptionally trained Federal law enforcement agents walks into the grocery store on a Saturday and witnesses a woman being repeatedly hit by her husband; do we want him to walk past the woman? No. The taxpayers spend money on his training so that he can protect victims, not walk away from them. In this situation, we all hope that he would use his training to protect the victim. But when he steps in to protect the victim from a crime of violence occurring in his presence, he risks state criminal prosecution and damage to his career. That might lead him to hesitate. This is contrary to good public policy. If we were the victim in this scenario, every one of us would want that Federal law enforcement officer to help us.

If a Federal agent acts to protect an individual in his presence from a crime of violence, as taxpayer dollars have trained him to do, and then is indicted in State court for that act, he should have the right to defend himself within the Federal court system.

So the Officer Safety Act amends the removal statute, found in Title 28, United States Code, Section 1442, to clarify when a Federal law enforcement officer is acting under the color of his office. This bill does not provide immunity for law enforcement agents, and it does not grant them additional authority. It doesn't even guarantee that the case will be moved from State to Federal court: the State will be heard and its position will be weighed by the judge before deciding if removal is appropriate. It does allow a Federal law enforcement officer/agent, who is indicted in a State court for actions related to his protection of a victim of a violent crime that is committed in the officer's presence, to petition for that criminal case to be removed to Federal court, where the officer will be required to defend his actions.

Current law provides that removal is proper so long as defendants demonstrate that they are officers of the United States that acted ``under color of'' their office and have a ``colorable federal defense''.

In general, a Federal agent acts ``under color of'' his office when he takes actions that are necessary and reasonable for the discharge of his Federal responsibilities. Accordingly, the prototypical example of a Federal officer acting under color of his office is a Federal law enforcement officer who kills someone while performing an act related to Federal law enforcement and, in the subsequent State homicide prosecution, claims he was acting in self-defense and/or is entitled to official immunity. The Supreme Court has upheld this prototypical example as appropriate for removal from State court to Federal court.

The primary restraint on the current statute's scope is its limitation to defendants who acted under color of Federal office or, in other words, while performing official duties. Defendants must show in their petition for removal that there is a causal nexus between the actions challenged and their Federal duties.

The history of the removal statute explains why this is important. The statute dates back to 1815. It was passed in response to the New England States' opposition to the trade embargo with England during the War of 1812. The law provided for the removal to Federal court of any suit or prosecution commenced in State court against a Federal customs officer or other persons enforcing Federal customs laws.

Thus, Federal agents did not need to fear performing their jobs because the local authorities opposed the embargo and wanted to stop them from enforcing it.

A few decades later, the U.S. Government encountered a similar problem in South Carolina, which in 1833 declared certain Federal tariff laws unenforceable within its borders. Congress responded by authorizing the removal of any suit or prosecution commenced in a State court against an officer of the United States for the enforcement of the Federal revenue laws.

During the Civil War and the Reconstruction era, Congress' disenchantment with State courts in the South led to new Federal officer removal laws. In the 1863 Habeas Corpus Act, Congress provided for the removal of suits or prosecutions against persons acting under Federal authority for actions, or failures to act, during the Civil War. In addition, Congress passed a removal statute similar to those of 1815 and 1833, authorizing the removal of suits or prosecutions commenced in State court against Federal officers for actions, or omissions, related to the collection of Federal revenue. However, it was not until the enactment of the Judicial Code of 1948 that Congress extended the statute to cover all Federal officers.

The courts view the history behind section 1442 and its statutory predecessors as justification for construing the statute broadly to assure the supremacy of U.S. law and protect Federal operations against interference from State judicial proceedings.

This bill does not infringe upon States' rights, as they retain the same due process rights to be heard on the question of removal that have existed since the early 1800s. In fact, this Congress passed a bill by unanimous consent that amended this statute, without a word about States' rights.

Today, Federal law enforcement officers, whether or not in uniform, require protections when they take actions to assist citizens. Civil liability protections are provided to officers under The Good Samaritan Act, codified at Title 28, United States Code, Section 2671. This bill, the Officer Safety Act, while modeled on the Good Samaritan Act, is narrower, more restrictive, and provides no liability protection. Rather, this bill clarifies the ``color of law'' prong required in the removal process, as courts have invited Congress to clarify.

The bill makes no change to the current standards governing when removal is permissible, and therefore leaves alone existing standards and case law. But it provides that in three situations, the law enforcement officer who is a defendant in a State criminal prosecution will be deemed to have acted under color of his or her office: when the officer protects a victim from a violent crime committed in the presence of the officer; when the officer provides immediate assistance to an individual who suffered or is about to suffer imminent bodily harm; and when the officer prevents the escape of an individual the officer reasonably believes committed or was about to commit, in the presence of the officer, a crime of violence that resulted in or was likely to result in serious bodily injury. I believe that in these situations, the Federal courts should always determine that the law enforcement officer acted under the color of his or her office for purposes of determining whether to grant the officer's removal petition. But the courts remain free to determine under current law that there are other circumstances in which an officer seeking removal satisfies the color of office standard.

So the bill is a modest change that nevertheless provides an important layer of safety for the people who risk their lives day-in and day-out to protect us. It will help make our communities safer and protect those who are sworn to guard and serve the American public.

This principle and this bill are supported by the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the Federal Bureau of Investigation Agents Association, and the National Border Patrol Council.

I want to thank Senator Coons, a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, who co-chairs the Senate Law Enforcement Caucus, and is a co-sponsor on this bill. He understands the need to support law enforcement officers who risk their lives every day so that we can sleep safely at night.

Further, I want to thank Senators Coburn and Sessions, also members of the Judiciary Committee and co-sponsors. They, too, understand this allows us to support Federal agents without spending a dollar.

``Law enforcement officers are never `off-duty.' '' To expect them to standby while a victim suffers violent acts in his presence is contrary to the oath they take to protect and renders their tax-funded training wasted as a citizen becomes a victim. Please join me in protecting those who protect us.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Small Business Election Simplification Act with my friends, Senators Snowe and Enzi.

I want to thank them for this collaboration, and I especially want to acknowledge Senator Snowe for her leadership. As Ranking Member of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Senator Snowe is one

of the Senate's experts on small business issues. She is always working to make sure that the Federal Government meets the needs of small businesses and is committed to creating the best possible environment for entrepreneurs.

That is exactly what our legislation is about--making it easier and more straightforward for entrepreneurs to start small businesses.

When starting up a new business, entrepreneurs often choose to organize their business as an S Corporation because of its simplicity. Owners of S Corporations report business income on their individual tax returns. So instead of having their business profits taxed at the corporate level of 35 percent, they pay taxes at their individual income tax rate. Not only is this simpler, but it also often saves small business owners money.

To become an S Corporation, small business owners have to go through what's called an ``election process'' and submit an election form to the IRS. The deadline to submit this election form is currently set a year in advance of the tax return deadline for businesses. This means that a new small business owner must know to submit the election form a full year before they have to do their taxes.

Unsurprisingly, many first-time business owners are unaware of this rule and therefore miss the election deadline. These taxpayers must wait an additional year before their business becomes an S Corporation, which can have serious tax consequences. Or they must go through a late election process with the IRS, which can be time-consuming and costly.

This is a real problem. In 2009, nearly 100,000 S Corporation returns could not be processed as filed. That was almost a quarter of all new S Corporation fillings. Missing or late elections is one of the main reasons that returns are rejected as filed.

The National Taxpayer Advocate--whose job is to watch out for the needs of taxpayers--described the current S Corporation election process as an undue burden on small businesses. Simplifying the S Corporation election process was one of 11 legislative recommendations outlined in the National Taxpayer Advocate's 2011 Annual Report to Congress.

Our legislation does just that. The Small Business Election Simplification Act would extend and coordinate S Corporation deadlines. It would match the S Corporation election deadline for new businesses with the deadline for tax returns. This would reduce the number of taxpayers who inadvertently miss the S Corporation election deadline and suffer negative tax consequences.

To further simplify the process and reduce paperwork, our legislation would also allow new small businesses to elect to become an S Corporation simply by designating the election on their S Corporation tax return. This would eliminate the need for business owners to fill out an additional election form.

Here in the Senate, we are always saying that small businesses are the engine of our economy; that they are the job creators; and that we need to support entrepreneurs coming up with the next big idea that will get our economy growing again.

Passing the Small Business Election Simplification Act is one thing we can do to help them. It can make a difference right now. By making it easier and more straightforward for new small businesses to become S Corporations, our legislation would free business owners to concentrate on the important stuff--like growing their business and hiring new workers, instead of worrying about IRS election form deadlines and learning about complicated business tax rules.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and send it to the President's desk to be signed into law as soon as possible.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.